I think there is a clear difference. My colleague from Illinois has a political idea of a fuel standard and says that will increase efficiency. The difference is that the Bond- Levin approach relies on what is working and that is having sound science, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, pushing the manufacturers of cars to improve mileage as quickly as it can be improved, using science and technology, rather than forcing them to go to small automobiles which, according to NHTSA, have caused between 1,300 and 2,600 more vehicle deaths a year as a result of the lower weight cars needed to meet arbitrary fuel standards previously imposed. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Durbin amendment but to support the Bond-Levin amendment to ensure that we maintain safe, efficient automobiles, getting better fuel economy, and providing choices for our families. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Share
More from Julian Bond
Let me explain briefly that we added one sentence to a two-sentence amendment saying, in essence, that it will not affect the GSEs, existing affordable housing programs. Those are programs already in effect. There was some question about…
Well, I think it is. I mean any time a group of people are denied rights and struggle for their rights, that's a civil rights movement.
I dispute his statement that there were 6 years of unlawful activity of the President. He said no court will be able to review the illegality; no independent officials have reviewed it. First, it is my understanding, although I was not one…
I thank the leaders of this effort, my good friends, Senators Dodd and Shelby, for their hard work and their efforts to address the housing crisis and the need to reform regulatory oversight of the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie…





